The logic goes this way: In its ruling tossing out the rules, the Appeals Court also affirmed the FCC’s broad power to regulate the relationship between broadband network operators and the Internet companies that push their content through the networks. And that authority is enough to enforce net neutrality principles.

While Verizon, which filed the suit seeking to strike down the laws, seemed to emerge victorious yesterday, Mr. Benjamin has a different take. “I am reasonably confident that if I were a member of Verizon’s board of directors and someone could have accurately predicted the content of today’s opinion before Verizon filed its lawsuit, as a director I would have said, “Then let’s not file the suit and let’s hope no one else does, either,” he wrote.

In its statement on the decision, Verizon said the court had rejected its position that the FCC does not have the authority to regulate broadband providers. “At the same time,” the company said, “the court found that the FCC could not impose last century’s common carriage requirements on the Internet, and struck down rules that limited the ability of broadband providers to offer new and innovative services to their customers.”

This all comes from the lengthy part of yesterday’s ruling explaining the powers the court believes the FCC does have. As noted in the WSJ yesterday, this includes the power to “take steps to accelerate broadband deployment if and when it determines that such deployment is not ‘reasonable and timely.’”

And promoting broadband deployment, the FCC has said, includes promoting the development of internet services from “edge providers” (such as YouTube or Netflix) that create demand among users for better and faster broadband. Net neutrality in this sense means preventing broadband providers from doing deals with one set of Internet companies that might slow down the overall growth of the Internet industry and, as a byproduct, slow demand for broadband investment.

In billiards, however, a triple-cushion shot, although perhaps more difficult to complete, counts the same as any other shot. The Commission could reasonably have thought that its authority to promulgate regulations that promote broadband deployment encompasses the power to regulate broadband providers’ economic relationships with edge providers if, in fact, the nature of those relationships influences the rate and extent to which broadband providers develop and expand their services for end users.

For their part, Netflix investors don’t seem too bothered by the ruling so far — the stock fell 2.2% on Wednesday. One analyst says even if the FCC gives up on net neutrality laws, internet providers would be foolish to try and charge companies like Netflix, given the backlash it could create among customers.

And there’s another factor that could discourage internet providers from getting too aggressive in pushing the Internet industry for carriage fees:

In ESPN’s early days, it paid cable companies to get on your line-up. Now cable pays ESPN (a lot). This is a cautionary tale for ISPs.

Indeed ESPN now earns more than $7,000 per year in carriage fees for each household that tunes in to its channels. It’s an incredible number, and one that Liberty Media chief Greg Maffei once described as “a tax on every American household,”

In that sense, Google may indeed be willing to pay to make sure YouTube videos stream at full speed. But on the other hand, how much might an ISP be willing to pay when facing the prospect of no Google services on their network?

What's to prevent a plane's bathrooms from becoming private phone booths, where someone can monopolize the time there for a private conversation while others have to wait outside? And what guidelines do the airlines give their in-flight personnel in how to handle the situation? Has anyone thought this through? Instead, maybe airlines should consider renting phone booth time and space on board.

5:12 pm January 16, 2014

Bill Eisen wrote:

Does net neutrality mean that everyone should have the ability to send and receive huge amounts of data as fast as possible for the same price as for someone who doesn't need this much bandwidth? I don't think so.

On the other hand should cable companies and service providers be prohibited from using their monopolistic powers from freezing out the competition as well as new and innovative services? Yes, definitely.